1613387 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by Miss [A], an Indonesian citizen, who claimed to fear serious harm from her former husband, Mr. [B], if returned to Indonesia. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether Miss [A] met the criteria for the grant of a protection visa, specifically whether she had a well-founded fear of persecution under the Refugee Convention or faced a real risk of significant harm under the complementary protection provisions.

The Tribunal considered Miss [A]'s claims of past harm and threats from her former husband, including allegations of torture and repeated attempts by him to locate her after she left him. It also examined her assertion that Indonesian authorities were unable to protect her. The Tribunal was required to assess the credibility of Miss [A]'s evidence, consider the consistency of her claims, and evaluate the likelihood of her experiencing harm upon return to Indonesia, taking into account relevant country information and policy guidelines.

The Tribunal found that Miss [A]'s fears of serious harm from her former husband were not well-founded. It noted inconsistencies in her evidence and concluded that the delay in her application for a protection visa was not indicative of someone genuinely fearing for their physical safety. Consequently, the Tribunal determined that Miss [A] did not face a real chance of persecution or significant harm upon return to Indonesia and therefore did not satisfy the criteria for the grant of a protection visa. The decision under review was affirmed.